Post #1 -Juan Sarmiento Rojas: Avatar: International Relations (Power)

In looking to get a grasp the material covered I decided to connect some major ideas to one of my favorite television shows. The series of Avatar: The last Air Bender and Avatar: Legend of Korra creates many distinctions between different nations and their international relation. By looking at instances of how the nations and those relations are portrayed we can gain a better understanding of the broad topic of power.

            In relation to the lecture focusing on Power, many of the forms of power and their definitions are present in the TV series. The world of Avatar consists of 4 groups of people: Fire Nation, Earth Kingdom, Water Tribe and Air Nomads. As taught in the lecture, realism and liberalism focuses on power that can make someone do what you desire. Power is elaborated on by the idea of “Hard Power”, which is simply military and economic power. This is all enforced by coercion and having threats and/or attacks that make others do what you wish. To better understand what kind of implications this really has I began to relate Hard Power to both the Fire and Earth Nations. The Fire Nation’s Hard Power focuses on Military power, which in turns creates economic power allowing them to increase military power even more. The Fire Nation created a 100-year war where they looked to take over all the other nations and managed destroy all the Air Nomads and their temples and almost decimated the Southern Water Tribe. Their military advances of iron ships and cannon like weapons allowed them to expand their nation take over people and force others to do things such as migrating or picking a side. The Earth Kingdom although very advanced in technology because of their huge empire and colonies and immense economy was the biggest rival to the Fire Nation.

Earth Kingdom possessed similar qualities of Hard Power with the armies and economy. The difference between was they did not really look to take over anyone other nation. Because of this, the ideas that the Fire Nation looked for realist power while the Earth Kingdom looked for a Realist Security can be applied in this case. Great rock walls defending the main city surrounded the Earth Kingdom. This can be attributed to the realist security ideal of physical survival and self help. Not looking to expand but also avoiding an invasion by the territory-hungry Fire Nation, the Earth Kingdom protects its self and its land in order to maintain the limited amount of security that can go around all the nations. The Earth Kingdom and Water Tribe create alliances in order to defend against the tyranny of the Fire Nation and balance their power, as taught in class.

In contrast to the more powerful nations, the Water Tribes and Air Nomads focus more on soft power as well as smart power, as taught in lecture. Both groups of people focus on their traditions and their beliefs. The Air Nomads practice Yoga and meditating, even reaching enlightenment. They believe in peace and the idea that if all can reach this harmony there will be no more power struggle. The Water Tribe is also very traditional when it comes to the family and relationship with nature. Both groups are able to persuade people, even from the Fire and Earth groups. This sort of power is not very apparent but it seems as if all accepted those traditions the world would be a better, harmony filled place.

Hopefully relating some ideas of power taught in lecture to a “kids” TV show, we all will be better at understanding the idea of power in International relations.

9.28 Blog Post

Gabriella Can

GVPT200 Sec 0101

Professor Shirk

28 September 2014

Mid-Level Feminism

                When the name Emma Watson comes to mind one could argue that an image of Hermione Granger from the praised book and movie series, Harry Potter, comes to mind. Instead, Emma Watson has change that image to a picture of a young woman standing before the United Nations and speaking on behalf of He for She, a movement to fight for women’s rights. She called herself to be a feminist and asked for “men and boys” to join the fight for equality among men and women. An argument can be made that “Feminist International Relations Theory” is not a grand scale theory such as realism or liberalism. Although feminism shares many qualities with constructivism, one could argue that feminism is more of a mid-level theory than a grand scale theory.

                The argument for feminism being a mid-level theory is backed by the idea that feminism focuses on an issue but it is hard to apply this idea on a grand scale. The definition for feminism is “the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.” This is more of a critique on society rather than a theory and realists would not support the idea of feminism. Although realists may not support this concept, constructivism can also be said to be a critique rather than a theory and can not be applied to all situations resulting in an positive outcome. Feminism involves morals and human rights while realists believe that the idea of morality does not exist and there is no room for something that is not universal. Feminists focuses on an individual group while realists focuses on the entirety of the universe.

                As discussed in class, there is a difference between the words gender and sex. The gender of an individual refers to whether or not that individual relates more with masculine qualities or feminine qualities. The definition of masculine qualities and feminine qualities are defined by society and society’s structure. The definition are whatever society makes them to be and this is why the feminist theory is similar to the critical theory due to both theories focuses around socially structured concepts. Emma discusses in her speech that, “at age fifteen my girlfriends started dropping out of their beloved sports teams because they did not want to appear muscly,” and “at age eighteen my male friends were unable to express their feelings.” These examples relate more to the definition of masculine and feminine discussed in class. Being muscly is commonly know as a masculine thing and is often associated with men, while expressing feelings and being emotion is often associated as a feminine concept and associated with women. These two qualities were defined by society and are now associated with masculine and feminine. Thucydides presents the idea of coercion in the readings and puts a pressure on men not to be weak because men are looked as having no power and being weak if they show signs of feminine characteristics.  

As discussed in her speech, Emma refers to word feminist and how it has become an unpopular word because it is associated with hating men, and this definition varies greatly from ones published online and the one discussed it class. In Tickner’s article the concept that, “international relations is perceived as a man’s world”, and Emma references that as a feminist she believes that she deserves to be respected as equally as men, to be paid the same amount as a man for doing the same job, and that she believes that gender equality is a human right. She is trying to change the idea of the “man’s world” and make it a society that can cooperate together. One could argue that she would believe in Power between men and women and them working together to achieve goals. She wants men and women to work together to achieve equality and to work together in society politically, socially, and economically. Ticker’s writing shows that feminism is the cooperation of men and women and that women have to group together in order to have power. Enloe also discusses how it takes cooperation to receive power and to maintain that power. Giving women power is not an easy task and it is easier to get smaller groups of people to go alone rather than the whole universe. Emma's speech has definitely shed more light to the concept of feminism and has allowed people to wonder is this mid-level theory can be apply to the universe. 

Blog Post #1, Silbert, Sovereignty

Molly Silbert

GVPT200-0101

Professor Shirk

9/28/14

Sovereignty; a complex and often ambiguous topic among nations. Sovereignty is defined as a state, which is completely independent from other territories, and has a complete form of government, containing military, economics, and social programs, all derived and run from one nation. Sovereignty has a defined territory, a permanent and steady population, and is independent from all. Thus, meaning that the state does not share power or decision making with any other nation beside itself. While sovereignty can be a difficult topic to understand, there has been much discussion of the topic in the news headlines today because of Scotland, and is an important matter that could affect us all.  While there are many advantages to Sovereignty, there are also some disadvantages, that to many, sway their opinion against it.

Sovereignty gives states the power to make all decisions completely on their own. There are no hurdles to jump through, as it can stop interference from other states from making law-making or enforcement decisions for other nations. There are also the advantages of having secured boarders, so that people from other countries cannot become a citizen without first going through an application process. Sovereignty ultimately leads to greater mutual cooperation, as people feel a sense of pride, and partnership, belonging to a country.

However, there are major disadvantages to becoming a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations have to be unified and agree on everything. While in the long run, nations that become sovereign, have a sense of national spirit, it could take awhile to come to each decision. Another major disadvantage to becoming a soverign nation, is that Nations that become sovereign, basically give up their rights for other countries to help them out in times of need.

In my opinion, Sovereignty is a necessity for a country to maintain independence just as the United States has done when they broke away from England. However, sovereignty can sometimes become jeopardized within a nation, by conflicting political opinions regarding trade, national defense and immigration. A standard by which a nation remains sovereign has to be more ridged than flexible, because if the standards are violated it threatens sovereignty itself.

Bibliography:

http://www.globalization101.org/the-issue-of-sovereignty/

http://www.socionauki.ru/journal/articles/127716/

http://www.ehow.com/info_8643248_advantages-sovereign-unity.html

The Realist, Jewish State

One of the central themes of realism is realist power. That is the way that realist states view their role in the power struggle that is our world. Because of this, when it comes to foreign policy, realist states tend to focus on national security as the most critical element for the survival of the state. When looking for an example of a state that practices a realist foreign policy, I selected the State of Israel. I believe that Israel practices realpolitik because of its deep understanding of states in anarchy, in the ways that it balances the power of other states in its region, and the extent to which it focuses on national interests and security as essential areas of government.

The Middle East is a region filled with states in anarchy. One need not look further than Bashar al-Assad’s Syria, a state that has been in utter anarchy for the past 3 years with hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Moving further east to Iraq, where ISIS has taken over countless cities formerly belonging to the Iraqi government, a “state” that now has almost no authority in its own country. And finally, in Egypt, a country that was relatively stable for decades, continuous regime changes have shifted the country’s political sands in the past five years. Needless to say that Israel, the only stable democracy in the Middle East, has much to be worried about. Because Israel is a realist state, it feels the need to combat its anarchist neighbors by exhibiting its military strength and in doing so, Israel believes that local states in anarchy will attack Israel because of its military prowess.
            Israel’s military prowess did not develop out of thin air; it was a product of the necessity to protect itself from the anarchy of its neighbors. This leads me to the second reason why I believe that Israel is a realist state, and that is because it invests a high percentage of its GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on its military power in order to balance the power of its neighboring countries. According to The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, in 2012, Israel spent $19.4 billion on defense spending or 7.85% of its GDP, at least 3% more than the USA did that same year. By using such a high percentage of its GDP on defense, Israel uses the power of its economy to strengthen the power of its military, a quintessentially realist action. Although Israel has strong ties with other states, both economically and militarily, Israel is always aware of how shifting the sands of the Middle East are, and is therefore steadfast in its determination to protect its sovereignty as a democracy in a sea of anarchy.

The State of Israel focuses much of its attention on National Security interests because, as I stated above, it is a necessity for its very survival. However, in order to fully understand Israel’s realist policies, one must take a look at Jewish History. Following the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Jewish people were exiled from the Land of Israel and spread all over the globe. Over the past 2,000 years, Jews have often been discriminated against, ultimately culminating in the Holocaust. It is because of this history that I believe that Israel practices the realist policy of self-help, meaning that they cannot fully rely on any other country to protect their National Security interests. Israel takes its National Security so seriously because it knows what would happen to the Jewish People if they no longer had their own sovereign state.

Israel is an example of a modern realist state because of its deep understanding of states in anarchy, the ways it balances the power of its enemies and neighbors, and how much it focuses on National Security issues. Israel is faced with many challenges and threats abroad and because of that, it believes that it must do whatever it takes to protect its people and its sovereignty.

Works Cited

"U.S. Defense Spending vs. Global Defense Spending." Center for Arms Control. N.p., 24 Apr. 2013. Web. 24 Sept. 2014.

Blog Post #1, Dignan, Why Realism Won't Work with ISIS

Sara Dignan

GVPT200, Section 0101

Blog Post #1

Why Realism Won’t Work with ISIS

            In his Huffington Post article “As ISIS Beast Threatens Mideast, A Call for Realism in U.S. Foreign Policy,” James Crotty argues that the United States should employ the realist theory in its confrontation of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Crotty asserts that if the U.S. is to be successful in its handling of ISIS, it should take a realist approach and bolster its military action. While I agree that military action in ISIS is beneficial, I don’t agree that the realist theory encompasses the U.S.’s best national interest in foreign affairs. In my opinion, the theory of liberalism would allow the U.S. to confront ISIS more effectively.

            The reason the realist theory can’t be applied to the U.S.’s dealings with ISIS is because it is too narrow. By assuming that power and security are the only goals of the state, realism overlooks many other issues facing the U.S. Liberalism better suits the U.S. because it allows for military action - in addition to economic dealings, global health issues, and humanitarian efforts. The U.S. has many other international concerns outside of its relative power ranking. For example, Obama shared his plan to increase aid for the fight against Ebola. This disease is expected to kill a million people by the end of this year, far more than ISIS ever will. It is clear that military power is not the only thing on the U.S.’s agenda. Crotty’s argument is ignorant because it fails to recognize the broad spectrum of affairs that the U.S. is involved in internationally. Fighting ISIS is one of our many concerns and it would be foolish to expend all of our resources on increasing our military power, as the realist theory suggests.

            Another issue with Crotty’s argument is that the realist theory applies only to states. ISIS, in the technical sense, is not a state. It is a terrorist group - an unrecognized state. Therefore, it is technically not recognized by the realist theory.

            Furthermore, employing a modern IR theory, like liberalism, allows for cooperation among states. In his article, Crotty argues that the U.S. should single-handedly take down ISIS with military force. However, ISIS is not just a threat to the U.S., but it is also a threat to the entire world. In my opinion, it should not be solely the U.S.’s responsibility to defeat ISIS just because we are the global hegemony. This week at the United Nations, Obama urged other world leaders to join the U.S. in the fight against ISIS, saying that it’s everyone’s battle and an international responsibility to stop the group. I agree with the president’s statement. This isn’t just the U.S.’s battle to fight. Cooperation will be necessary in order to take down this group. This cooperation that is needed is customary of the liberal and feminist theories of IR. If the U.S. were to take Crotty’s suggestion of utilizing the realist theory, cooperation would not be part of the equation, and battling ISIS would be much more difficult.  

            Crotty makes a valid point when he says the U.S. needs to employ military force on ISIS. I think he takes things too far, however, when he argues that we should deal with it from a realist point of view. Yes, military action is needed in the situation, and I agree with the U.S.’s decision to use air strikes in the region. But, in addition to military force, we need cooperation with other states, economic power, and humanitarian relief in order to effectively terminate ISIS. Liberalism would be a much better theory for the U.S. to apply to its action on ISIS.